Share this story

Google Fiber's director of network engineering, Jeffrey Burgan, yesterday wrote a blog post explaining why the Google-operated Internet service provider doesn't charge Netflix and other content companies for direct connections to its network.

Comcast and other ISPs have demanded that Netflix enter "paid peering" agreements to get direct connections to their networks and alleviate congestion that can harm the performance of streaming video. Google Fiber, on the other hand, gives "companies like Netflix and Akamai [a content delivery network] free access to space and power in our facilities and they provide their own content servers," Burgan wrote. "We don’t make money from peering or colocation; since people usually only stream one video at a time, video traffic doesn’t bog down or change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way—so why not help enable it?"

Further Reading

Google's argument is, naturally, a bit self-serving as it is more of a content provider than an ISP. Google owns YouTube, the second biggest online video service in North America in terms of traffic, and has direct interconnection deals with AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs. Google hasn't said whether it's paying those companies for the direct interconnections, but it's a good bet that it is making payments.

Burgan's post said that unpaid connections between ISPs and content providers create "a win-win-win situation. It’s good for content providers because they can deliver really high-quality streaming video to their customers. For example, because Netflix colocated their servers along our network, their customers can access full 1080p HD and, for those who own a 4K TV, Netflix in Ultra HD 4K. It’s good for us because it saves us money (it’s easier to transport video traffic from a local server than it is to transport it thousands of miles). But most importantly, we do this because it gives Fiber users the fastest, most direct route to their content."

Video companies like Netflix already spend lots of money building up networks, Burgan pointed out. "Content providers spend a lot of money (many billions of dollars) building their own networks to transport their content all the way to those ‘last-mile’ connections [such as Google Fiber]," he wrote. "In that process, the content may run into bottlenecks—if the connections between the content provider and our network are slow or congested, that will slow down your access to content, no matter how fast your connection is."

To prevent congestion, Google Fiber "invite[s] content providers to hook up their networks directly to ours. This is called ‘peering,’ and it gives you a more direct connection to the content that you want."

Netflix built a content delivery network called Open Connect, which can peer with ISPs at Internet exchange points or place storage appliances in ISP networks. Open Connect partners include Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, RCN, and Telmex.

"Usually, when you go to Netflix and click on the video that you want to watch, your request needs to travel to and from the closest Netflix data center, which might be a roundtrip of hundreds or thousands of miles," Burgan wrote. "Instead, Netflix has placed their own servers within our facilities (in the same place where we keep our own video-on-demand content). Because the servers are closer to where you live, your content will get to you faster and should be a higher quality."

Google Fiber is available now in Kansas City and Provo, Utah, with plans to come to Austin, Texas. Google is evaluating 34 more cities for possible deployment. San Antonio, Texas looks like it might be the next city to get Google Fiber.

The thing which really gets me going is that there is really NO GOOD REASON why comcast is not apart of Netflix open connect...except for the fact that forcing netflix customers through their neglected tier 1 settlement free peering point gives them leverage to ask netflix for a paid peering connection.

Running open connect would DRAMATICALLY lower the bandwidth going to Comcast through their tier 1 peering point. OF course they don't actually want that, they WANT their peering point to be boiling hot.

It is the ISP's job to provide their customers 24/7 internet service that allows the customers to access the www. Why is there not any government intervention that the ISP's cannot do their job and need content providers to kick in equipment and money to do the ISP's job for them?

"don't be evil" has become synonymous for "don't do things I don't like" for people who have an irrational problem with Google.

I don't know. Forced Google+ integration was pretty evil.

It was annoying, it was pretty "thing I don't like", it wasn't even close to evil. Evil is what the Republicans on the Supreme Court and in congress and the senate are doing to the world on an ongoing basis.

The thing which really gets me going is that there is really NO GOOD REASON why comcast is not apart of Netflix open connect...except for the fact that forcing netflix customers through their neglected tier 1 settlement free peering point gives them leverage to ask netflix for a paid peering connection.

Running open connect would DRAMATICALLY lower the bandwidth going to Comcast through their tier 1 peering point. OF course they don't actually want that, they WANT their peering point to be boiling hot.

Google hasn't said whether it's paying those companies for the direct interconnections, but it's a good bet that it is making payments.

Is it, really? How fast you can search Google is probably one of the easiest ways customers decide whether their connection is "good", so it would make sense for ISPs to help with that. Here in Europe I would guess they also want Google's servers in their network to avoid trips over the Atlantic.

Why are the Dakotas that high in speed? I am so confused. Of all the states to be above average, the Dakotas are not one I would guess.

They have Midcontinent, a cable company that actually provides a really good service. I lived in Grand Forks for seven years of my life (college and a bit after for a job) and I loved their service. No caps, relatively cheap, no down time (or if there would be down time, they'd actually email you at least a week in advance telling you of the service outage window), and they'd regularly upgrade your bandwidth without charge/or lower your price.

Because they damn well should. Because double dipping, getting a customer to pay for bandwidth then getting the service providers to pay to use that bandwidth, is despicable. And because, in a system where people are free to choose to patronize whichever ISPs they please (i.e., not ones that participate in this type of behavior), Comcast would be out of business pretty quickly.

Unfortunately, none of the above applies because we allow special interests to buy and pay for whichever lawmakers they please, we're incredibly averse to regulating businesses, and we worship the almighty dividend above all else in the US. Must be nice for the many other developed nations that have decided customers deserve a good deal, not these piggy companies.

Despite its status as a giant in the tech world, ws an ISP provider Google is still very small with only a very limited customer base. That means they have limited market power in the ISP world, which limits their ability to negotiate for peering payments as well as their incentive to do so (since any payment they could manage to negotiate would be peanuts for them).

The real ISPs, on the other hand, are all regional monopolies with large customer bases and do have very strong market power. Add to this the fact that they are all now in the content delivery service and are looking to selling those digital movie rentals and sales as their new profit centers, and you end up with a few companies that have a stranglehold on what goes through their pipes as well as a strong incentive to discriminate against other content providers (in order to enhance their own competing business). So in what world can you not expect them to try and squeeze and finangle every trick they can come up with to increase their already huge profits?

"don't be evil" has become synonymous for "don't do things I don't like" for people who have an irrational problem with Google.

I don't know. Forced Google+ integration was pretty evil.

It was annoying, it was pretty "thing I don't like", it wasn't even close to evil. Evil is what the Republicans on the Supreme Court and in congress and the senate are doing to the world on an ongoing basis.

OK, boys and girls, say it with me

Democrat = Republican = people only interested in keeping power and making money.

That said; Google has drifted towards the dark side of the force with many of their actions of late. However, I still see the good in them. I just hope it doesn't take a self sacrificing toss of the emporer to get them to come back. I just wish they'd speed up the fiber deployment and get to the DFW area fast!

Everything I have seen points to Comcast being paid plenty of money by its subscribers. Internet on Comcast costs between $30 and $56 a month depending on what special you have. There are about 15M people on Comcast using Netflix. Now do the math - Comcast is getting paid $7B-9B a year to provide this Internet service. I also read several reports that Comcast's margins on Internet service are over 90%.

Let's put this in perspective. Comcast's profits off from their Netflix subscribers are in the $6B to $8B range. Netflix's entire revenues for all of their customers is $4.5B.

My conclusion is that Comcast is being paid far more than necessary to deliver the Netflix traffic, that I, as a Comcast subscriber, am requesting.

So I hope this backfires on Comcast and they get regulated as a utility and limited to 10% margins. That might send my bill down to $10 with them. If that happens it wouldn't be so bad to give Netflix a few extra dollars a month.

But right now I am paying for 25Mb/s and I can't get that speed out of hardly any sites beside speedtest servers which makes me think the routes to speedtest servers have been rigged to always perform perfectly.

All of this makes me conclude that Comcast is purposely behaving as a monopoly and working to thwart potential IPTV competitors. So a good fix for that would be to make Comcast deliver their own TV channels over the same path that Netflix is forced to use.

It is the ISP's job to provide their customers 24/7 internet service that allows the customers to access the www. Why is there not any government intervention that the ISP's cannot do their job and need content providers to kick in equipment and money to do the ISP's job for them?

Oh wait... I know that answer.

Weren't certain ISPs and telcos given billions of dollars to improve access? Didn't they do fuck-all, but keep the money, and additionally demand legislation outlawing their competition? Example: Time Warner got a law passed against Cary, NC's municipal fiber project -- and then never improved their own service.

Why are the Dakotas that high in speed? I am so confused. Of all the states to be above average, the Dakotas are not one I would guess.

They have Midcontinent, a cable company that actually provides a really good service. I lived in Grand Forks for seven years of my life (college and a bit after for a job) and I loved their service. No caps, relatively cheap, no down time (or if there would be down time, they'd actually email you at least a week in advance telling you of the service outage window), and they'd regularly upgrade your bandwidth without charge/or lower your price.

It is a really, really good ISP/cable company.

Yup yup. I live in central MN and have MidContinent as well, and I have to agree. We have fast, clean internet, new equipment, and very reasonable prices. In fact, they just raised our bill by a few bucks, but I don't even care... the other option in this area is Charter, and MidCo still blows them away by both price and quality.

which makes me think the routes to speedtest servers have been rigged to always perform perfectly

Jaaaaackpot!

In fact, if you read your contract carefully, you are paying for 25Mb/s WITHIN Comcast's network. They are not responsible nor liable for your speed to any content outside their network (They will blame the content provider / other ISP's on route to content).

It's just how internet works. You, as an ISP, cannot be held responsible for connections outside your network.

Now, Having PROOF (Comcast's documents and talks) that Netflix's lower performance and lack of speed was due to COMCAST's peering being saturated, customer's could sue.

If Google Fiber decides to move into Salt Lake City (currently, only proposed), I will move 20 minutes down the road to be within the service area. I have had it with Comcast and Centurylink, the only options in my city.

which makes me think the routes to speedtest servers have been rigged to always perform perfectly

Jaaaaackpot!

In fact, if you read your contract carefully, you are paying for 25Mb/s WITHIN Comcast's network. They are not responsible nor liable for your speed to any content outside their network (They will blame the content provider / other ISP's on route to content).

It's just how internet works. You, as an ISP, cannot be held responsible for connections outside your network.

Now, Having PROOF (Comcast's documents and talks) that Netflix's lower performance and lack of speed was due to COMCAST's peering being saturated, customer's could sue.

Well, technically you're paying for speeds up to 25Mb/s within their network (God I wish I had that speed on option here...) but with internet, what you see is probably 3-4 times what you get (

And here is me crying that I'm still never, ever going to be able to get Google Fiber.

Onward march into the technological singularity!

Note to self: Don't live in Montana.

I don't know about this map... i rarely get over 10Mbs and I'm paying for "up to" 30, yet I'm squarely in the light blue of central Florida. (brighthouse country)

This gives a interesting view of "Red" states and "Blue States". Almost a one to one relationship which brings up a thought, when there is access to information, when that access is not super controlled and not frustrating, the population is more informed and able to make better decisions regarding their society. It may seem obvious, but when you see it laid out in simple graphics...fascinating and scary.

"don't be evil" has become synonymous for "don't do things I don't like" for people who have an irrational problem with Google.

I don't know. Forced Google+ integration was pretty evil.

It was annoying, it was pretty "thing I don't like", it wasn't even close to evil. Evil is what the Republicans on the Supreme Court and in congress and the senate are doing to the world on an ongoing basis.

OK, boys and girls, say it with me

Democrat = Republican = people only interested in keeping power and making money.

That said; Google has drifted towards the dark side of the force with many of their actions of late. However, I still see the good in them. I just hope it doesn't take a self sacrificing toss of the emporer to get them to come back. I just wish they'd speed up the fiber deployment and get to the DFW area fast!